Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Barnwell's age adjustment for 40 times seems a little smelly to me. Is a 26-year-old really slower than he was at 21 when he ran at the combine? Michael Johnson was 28 when he tore up the Atlanta Olympics. Usain Bolt didn't seem any slower in the 2012 Olympics (age 25) than the 2008 Olympics. Carl Lewis was faster in the 100m in 1988 (age 27) than in 1984.

 

Obviously there is a slowdown with age, but my guess is that for a pro athlete who's training year-round, he won't start losing speed until he hits 30 or so. So what? So Barnwell's method heavily biases towards inexperienced teams. So it's no surprise that all of the teams at the top are bad offenses, because having a lot of inexperienced players tends to mean having a bad team.

Posted (edited)

Yeah Age adjusted should probably start at age 27.

I think NFL players probably get faster going from College to the Pros for the first few years of training, not slower.

 

Edit:

 

And more importantly some of the players that maybe had a less than stellar 40 time, getting training by an NFL program can probably significantly boost their effective speed.

 

So basically this whole concept is extremely flawed. It is just noise imo.

Edited by Why So Serious?
Posted

Barnwell is ok and occasionally makes decent points. But analytics don't work as well in football as they do in baseball.

 

If "speed kills" then why do the fastest teams on this list stink?

 

Because they don't have a good qb yet. It's pretty simple.

×
×
  • Create New...